When we are dealing with the past, with pre-history, it is difficult to come up with proofs. Both Evolutionists and Creationists use evidence to support their theories. For both Creation and Evolution, we are dealing with evidence to support the theories. No one was present as observer and neither model of origins can be reproduced in laboratory experiments. In a sense they are more in the realm of philosophy or historical science.
There is much evidence that Creation is a correct understanding of origins but that Creation took place in six literal days is mostly based on Scripture.
1. The Hebrew word for day “yom” is used both for an indefinite period of time, such as the expression “In the day when God shall judge,” Romans 2:16, and for a 24 hour day. However, the word always means a 24 hours literal day when used with a numeral. In the creation account it is used with a numeral—day one, day two etc. There are no exceptions to this rule.
2. When the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, they were supplied manna every morning. They were to gather only enough for one day’s use. Anything more than that would spoil by the next morning. On Friday, they were to gather twice the amount because none would be available Saturday morning. They needed enough for two days. What they gathered extra on Friday for use on Saturday did not spoil! This illustrates that the weekly cycle of seven literal days with its memorial of Creation on the seventh day was being promoted by God. This was a lesson some of the Israelites had difficulty learning. See Exodus 16:14-31.
3. The week as a unit of time has no basis in the movements of earth, moon or sun like the day, the month, or the year. Other than a week of creation activity, there seems to be no reason for the week as a unit of time.
4. The seventh day of Creation Week was set aside as a rest day. It was kept by the Jews in the wilderness and continued to be observed in the time of Christ (Luke 4:16; Luke 23:55,56), in the time of Paul (Acts 17:2) and even today by orthodox Jews. The change of the calendar did not affect the weekly cycle and cannot be used as an argument against the integrity of the week.
5. Having long periods of time between each day of Creation can generate problems. For instance, if plants were created on the third day, how long would the plants have had to wait before they experienced any sunshine (created on the fourth day). There is much relationship between plants and animals (insects for pollination, for example). How did the plants get along for the long period of time between the third day and the fifth day when insects were created if the days are not literal?
6. The fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) clearly links the seventh day (the Sabbath) with the weekly cycle. It is clear that Moses, the author of this account, could not have been referring to long indefinite periods of time. The word "remember" at the beginning of this commandment cannot have meaning if the days were long eons of time (much longer than human lifespans). The admonition concerning days of labor and day of rest would also be meaningless.
7. The wording of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis is best understood as meaning literal days. The words "day and night", "evening and morning", and "light and darkness" can hardly be understood as indefinite periods of time.
There are two aspects of Evolution--minor change (microevolution) and major change (macro or megaevolution). Microevolution is clearly a feature of living organisms. We see the numerous breeds of dogs and the different kinds of roses, etc. Many of these have been developed by humans.
On the other hand, megaevolution cannot be clearly demonstrated. Various evidence is presented but careful examination often reveals that the evidence is weak, subject to alternate interpretations, or incorrect. Evolution (which means change) is a "fact" if reference is being made to microevolution. To call megaevolution, major change such as is needed for the Theory of Evolution to be true, is a misstatement. It is not a proven "fact." Some evolutionists have called Evolution a "fact" without distinguishing between these two aspects of Evolution. Scientists are still looking for a satisfactory mechanism for producing the kinds of changes needed to evolve plants and animals from simple to complex.
Unless knowledge of the evidence for both Creation and Evolution is available, it is difficult for anyone to evaluate where the evidence is strongest. Most evolutionists have never seriously looked at the evidence for Creation. They accept what they have been taught or what they read. They naturally interpret what they see and their research results from the standpoint of Evolution. On the otherhand, creation scientists are likely to be familiar with the evidence for both Evolution and Creation. We believe that the evidence for Creation by an Intelligent Being is clearly the strongest.